MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118214416 · doi:10.3168/jds.2014-8248

Use of a direct-fed microbial product as a supplement during the transition period in dairy cattle

2014· article· en· W2118214416 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ousama AlZahal, Henry C. McGill, Adam Kleinberg, Jane. Holliday, I.K. Hindrichsen, T.F. Duffield, B.W. McBride

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersOntario Ministry of Food and Agriculture
KeywordsPeriod (music)Dairy cattleProduct (mathematics)Transition (genetics)Food scienceAnimal scienceBiotechnologyBiologyMathematicsBiochemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two studies were conducted. The objective of the first study was to assess the effects of a direct-fed microbial (DFM) product on dry matter intake, milk yield, milk components, disease incidence, and blood metabolites in dairy cattle. The objective of the second study was to assess the effects of DFM on apparent total-tract nutrient digestibility (ATTD). One hundred twenty primiparous and multiparous Holstein cows housed in a tiestall facility at the University of Guelph were used in study 1, and a subset (21) of the same cows participated in study 2. Cows were blocked by anticipated calving date (6 blocks) and then randomly assigned within parity to receive either a DFM supplement (Chr. Hansen Ltd., Milwaukee, WI) or placebo (control). The DFM supplement provided cows with 5.0 × 10(9) cfu/d of 3 strains of Enterococcus faecium and 2.0 × 10(9) cfu/d of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The DFM supplement was mixed with 0.5 kg of ground dry corn and top-dressed during the morning feeding. The placebo supplement contained the corn only. Individual feed intakes and milk yields were recorded daily. The experiment commenced 3 wk before calving and ended 10 wk postcalving. Milk samples for component analysis were collected on 3 d per week and pooled by week. Body weights and body condition scores were assessed 1 d before enrollment in the study (wk -3), postcalving (wk 1), and at the end of wk 3, 6, and 9. Blood samples were collected before calving (wk -3) and the end of wk 1 and 3. Study 1 showed that treatment had no effect on average dry matter intake or milk yield (kg/d) over the duration of the experiment. The changes in body weights and body condition scores and net energy balance over the duration of the experiment did not differ due to treatment. Treatment had no effect on plasma concentrations of β-hydroxybutyrate, nonesterified fatty acids, glucose, or haptoglobin. Study 2 investigated the effects of DFM on ATTD of starch and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) using insoluble NDF and lignin as internal markers. Study 2 used 21 cows (block 6) from the cows that participated in study 1 while the cows were between 60 and 70 d in milk. Cows receiving DFM had lower fecal starch content (0.88 ± 0.10 vs. 1.39 ± 0.25) and greater ATTD for starch (98.76% ± 0.28 vs. 97.87% ± 0.24) compared with those receiving placebo, and the AATD of NDF did not differ. Additionally, we detected no difference between internal markers for the measurement of ATTD. In conclusion, we were unable to detect a change in overall dry matter intake, milk yield, or milk and blood parameters with DFM supplementation. However, our results demonstrated that DFM can have a positive effect on total-tract starch digestibility. More studies are needed to investigate the effects of DFM and their modes of action under multiple management conditions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207